[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 66 (Monday, May 19, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E951-E952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E951]]

 H.R. 5--INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 13, 1997

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my 
colleagues in both parties today to support this remarkable achievement 
on behalf of children with disabilities and their families.
  I have always believed that it is an honor and a privilege to serve 
in Congress. Today I can say that I am truly proud to serve in Congress 
and to have played a role in upholding the laws that protect our 
children and their families.
  We had some very serious disagreements when we started this effort 2 
years ago to revise the two-decades-old law on disability education.
  At that time, there were several critical points that prevented us 
from coming to an agreement.
  I believed then and still believe that all children, regardless of 
the nature of severity of their disability, must be guaranteed a free 
and appropriate public education and that no child should be denied an 
education.
  I said last year that if the California Legislature could conclude 
that this sound educational and social policy does not compromise 
school safety, then Congress should do so as well. The language in this 
bill before us specifically prohibiting cessation of services 
accomplishes that goal.
  I believed then and still believe that treatment of children with 
disabilities should be guided by what we know about the nature of the 
child's disability and its effect on his or her behavior. 
Unfortunately, this knowledge needs to be more widely disseminated. 
Language proposed in consideration of this bill previously would have 
allowed schools to discipline disabled students solely for so-called 
``disruptive behavior''.
  Most of us assume this was a well-intended effort, yet nonetheless it 
would have resulted in a situation where any of a wide-range of 
nonthreatening but, to some, unpleasant behaviors, could have been 
grounds for suspension or expulsion.
  I am pleased that my colleagues had the good sense to strike this 
provision from the bill.
  I believed then and still believe that parents are entitled to pursue 
all legal avenues available to them to ensure their child is treated 
fairly. Unfortunately, some had argued for provisions which would have 
curtailed or severely diminished these rights.
  I am pleased that the bill before us maintains the fundamental rights 
we established when this groundbreaking law was written over 20 years 
ago.
  The bill before us today resolves these differences to the 
satisfaction of the many different parties that have contributed to 
this process and who are affected by this legislation.
  Other more, specific aspects of the bill also deserve note.
  First, this bill permits a hearing officer to decide whether to place 
a child in an alternative educational setting for no more than 45 days 
if a school district proves beyond a preponderance of evidence that 
maintaining the child in his or her current educational placement is 
substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. The 
standard substantially likely was established by the Supreme Court in 
Honig versus Doe. In that case, the Court described the children who 
could be moved as those who are truly dangerous, and noted that it was 
up to the school district to rebut the presumption of maintaining the 
child in the current placement. In deciding whether the district has 
met this burden, it would not be permissible to move a child based on 
behavior that is not truly dangerous.
  In addition, H.R. 5 requires the hearing officer to consider the 
appropriateness of the child's placement and efforts by the school 
district to minimize the risk of harm. Thus, the bill assumes that it 
would not be permissible to remove a child when the child's behavior 
can be addressed in the current placement.
  In placing the additional authority with the hearing officers, the 
proposed bill recognizes the important role already assigned to these 
individuals in guaranteeing the rights of children with disabilities. 
It is because of the importance of this role that the Act requires that 
hearing officers be impartial and prohibits the designation of an 
employee of the child's school district as a hearing officer.
  It is expected that hearing officers will be provided appropriate 
training to carry out this new responsibility in an informed and 
impartial manner and that both State educational agencies and the 
Secretary of Education will closely monitor the implementation of this 
provision.
  The intent behind this bill was to strengthen the least restrictive 
environment requirement and participation of children with disabilities 
in the general curriculum and the regular education classroom.
  In keeping with this goal, the bill clarifies that the regular 
education teacher is part of the IEP team if the child is, or may be, 
participating in the regular education environment. With respect to the 
IEP team, it is also important to underscore the right of parents to 
bring advocates or anyone else they care to bring to support them in 
the IEP process. Parents often need this support to level the playing 
field and allow them to participate meaningfully in the IEP process.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill strengthens enforcement of 
IDEA by providing the Secretary more flexibility in withholding funds 
in cases of noncompliance and by explicitly clarifying the Secretary's 
ability to refer matters to the Department of Justice for enforcement 
action. Enforcement of this Act has been one of the main obstacles to 
full implementation. These new features will help assure that 
noncompliance will not go unchecked.
  This process we went through in crafting these agreements was not 
easy. We had to overcome very real and difficult disagreements. Those 
of us who believed the rights of children and their parents were going 
to suffer were able to work with our colleagues in Congress who saw 
this issue differently and were able to agree that these rights should 
be protected.
  What we strove to achieve, and what I think we've accomplished, is a 
bill that protects the rights of children with disabilities, and at the 
same time fosters cooperation between parents, teachers, school boards, 
administrators, and State and local agencies to help ensure that each 
recognizes their responsibilities and that each must make a commitment 
to work collaboratively to serve the best interests of all children.

  I particularly wish to thank Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for 
allowing us the arena in which to make this achievement. It was a 
remarkable process. Senator Lott's dedication, and that of his chief of 
staff, David Hoppe, have served us all well.
  I would also like to thank the other members of the bipartisan House-
Senate IDEA working group--Chairman Goodling, Representatives Riggs, 
Castle, Martinez, and Scott, and Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Harkin, 
and Coats--along with their staffs, for the extraordinary effort they 
made in putting this agreement together.
  I would also like to extend special thanks to Assistant Secretary of 
Education Judy Heumann, whose commitment to and effectiveness in 
addressing issues affecting those with disabilities, and whose impact 
on my knowledge and understanding of these issues, is second to no 
one's. Judy was an integral part of this process from beginning to end 
and this agreement simply would not have been possible without her.
  Mr. Speaker, during our deliberations on this act I received in the 
mail a letter from an old friend of mine, retired superior Court judge 
Robert J. Cooney, enclosing a copy of a book written by his son, Peter, 
describing what life is like for a child with Down's syndrome and for 
that child as he becomes an adult and seeks his place in American 
society. Over the years I have had the opportunity to watch Peter grow 
as he progressed through school and participated in the Special 
Olympics and achieve greater and greater independence.
  Peter makes it clear in his book the importance of family and the 
available resources: ``it is the love of parents and others that make 
the person special. We need help sometimes. Parents and teachers and 
counselors should help us when we need help but don't do too much for 
us.--Some counselors need to think of us as special. Part of their job 
is helping us become independent.''
  Peter is now 32 years old, lives in a residential facility and works 
in the food service business at Cosumnes River College when he is not 
attending a book signing.

[[Page E952]]

  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about empowering parents and 
students to be able to get the best education they can, so that like 
Peter they too will have the chance to participate fully in American 
society.
  We should never forget why we went through this process. Before the 
IDEA law was on the books over 20 years ago, more than a million 
children with disabilities were not being educated. Schools refused to 
take them, and States did not force them to do.
  IDEA is a civil rights law. For a parent with a disabled child, there 
is nothing more important than knowing your child will get as good an 
education as any other child. You would think that is not so much to 
ask in this great and rich country of ours. In fact, twenty years ago, 
it was too much to ask. But it is not any more.

                          ____________________